Words'nTone

Another thing: where do we get the idea that each one of us has an individualized purpose, a custom-tailored -just-for-me-purpose designed by God?  In America, as one person remarked, we have 290 million gods.  And, it is hard to please them all.  I’d add: we have 290 million popes that can determine, all by themselves, God’s individualized purpose for their lives.  If we all are to find individualized purpose—a plan designed just for me—then we are bound to be vying for fulfilling that purpose—all together, each one doing what is right in his or her own eyes.  (Isn’t there something biblical negative about that in the first place?) Now don’t get me wrong, or misunderstand.  I do believe that, through council, a discipleship relationship, and with the assistance of a larger Christian community (one’s church or elders for example), a sub-purpose (and individual plan) can be promoted and determined and fostered and fulfilled.  But such calls for finding God’s purpose for one’s life isn’t set within that mode of disciples, but set very much within the context of American individualism and self-fulfillment.  On a Sunday morning, we are not 300 (using my church’s attendance as an example) individuals looking for custom-tailored purposes (And, perhaps potentially competing purposes, too.  And what happens if the purpose I hear--determine--God calling me to is to preach at my church--do you think the present pastor is just going to say “Okay”?).  We ought to be 300 individuals being called to a purpose.  We continue to confuse God’s call to “seek first His Kingdom and His righteousness” with American individualism and self-fulfillment.  No wonder God’s purpose doesn’t get done and we find ourselves frustrated, joyless, troubled, anxious, and plagued by individual sins and guilt.

We have turned biblical Christianity into a religion of pragmatism, exchanging a biblical worldview for a mere, and lower, utilitarian religion.  One case in point is our fascination with “practical application.” I find it ironic that I hear so much appeal for finding our purpose as Christians.  Over the course of thirty years, I hear almost every Sunday that there is a big plan for my life; that I have a purpose; that there is a grand picture, a bigger picture into which I fit.  Then, and almost in the same breath I’ll be asked about the details of my life.  I’ll be asked to repent of individualized and private sins.  Every text I hear from preachers seems to bear on the minute details of my life, or so it seems from the sermonizing.  How are we to grasp the larger picture when we’re forced to think about the details?  Especially the details of my life?  How can I find the purpose when I am asked to consider the particulars?  To decipher the minute, moments and details of my everyday life.  That’s what has me bogged down in the first place.

I find this ironic and very puzzling.  I understand that a “popular” preacher is practical and is skilled at showing how practical Christianity and the Bible is.  This is important to the current marketing of the church and of Christianity in modern society.  I understand this.  But its not remotely derived from a biblical model.  I believe it was G.K. Chesterton who once said, “For those who do not believe in God, joy is peripheral and suffering is fundamental; but for the believer, suffering is peripheral and joy is fundamental.” In other words, the Christian is one who maintains a worldview where joy is fundamental, and outside of that (i.e., the details), such things as suffering are peripheral.

Current demands on pastoral leadership (here I mean market demands and the demands of how success is now measured) present pressure that cause us to reverse this in our preaching and teaching: be practical, offer details, but yet demand everyone to sign on to God’s big purpose.  This is self-defeating—and no wonder us humans have a hard time with Christianity.  This works against the goal of discovering God’s big purpose.  In fact this works against much of Biblical material, even the texts of command and exhortation, for the biblical documents are filled with worldview-developing exhortations, and rarely the details and minutiae of private application.

Moreover, for the most part the inspired sacred text is given to help us gain the big picture, i.e., a biblical worldview.  When Mark expressed the essence and summary of the Gospel as preached by Jesus—and to be repeated by those who follow—it is, just that, a summary that is to help us frame our worldview.  Details will follow naturally.  Just as when an athlete (since its Winter Olympic time now) gives himself or herself to the sport (the big picture) and to the objectives and goals of that sport, other things, peripheral things (the details) become clear.  The athlete learns what can and cannot be done, what should and should not be done in order to fulfill the One Big Picture (i.e. play the sport).  I do believe that, within a discipleship relationship with a mature Christian mentor, one can find a sub-purpose (a personalized purpose) that can be lived out in light of the ONE BIG PURPOSE of God’s Kingdom that has arrived in the Person of Jesus Christ.  But we get lost in the details, our eyes are too close to the map, the colors of the painting all bleed together because we’re too close… We need to hear that from Scripture that we are called to this ONE BIG PURPOSE, which can be summed up, easily in two texts from the Gospels:

“Now after John had been taken into custody, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the gospel of God, and saying, ‘The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel.’ As He was going along by the Sea of Galilee, He saw Simon and Andrew, the brother of Simon, casting a net in the sea; for they were fishermen. And Jesus said to them, ‘Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.’ Immediately they left their nets and followed Him” (Mark 1:14-18).

“But seek first His kingdom and His righteousness, and all these things will be added to you” (Matthew 6:33).

I believe that the preoccupation of the details—that is concentrating on the privatized aspects of our lives, sins, and the attempting to make Christianity so individualized and practical—actually works against God’s actually Kingdom-mission purpose being believed, own, and actualized in our life.

Don’t pray for patience
Scares me when someone leads in prayer, “Lord, help us to be more patient.” I know—and we all should know—there is only one answer to that prayer: God will bring about things in our lives to make us more patient, i.e., trouble, anguish, hurt, irritation…I think you can supply the remainder of the list.  There is no worse prayer to pray, accept asking God to make you more humble.  Again, there is only one way God can answer that prayer…and it should scare the wits out of us.  You might sound pious praying such a prayer—but you will not find such in all of Scripture.  In fact, you can scour the Bible cover to cover and you will never—ever, never, nada, not one verse, or even a hint—read a command or even encouragement to ask God for more patience or humility.  In fact, we are simply commanded to be humble, seek humility, and have patience.

A pet peeve
I have, as my kids would say, a number of pet peeves.  One that gets me, which happens in most churches week after week at church: Regular attendees who constantly sit at the far ends of the pews (or row of chairs), that is the opening, the first sets of chairs or spaces, making every single person that comes in after them, including guests, older folks, and women with infants or small children) climb over them to get to open seats in the middle of the pew (or row of chairs).  I am not too bothered by guests doing this, but regulars…come on.  Not only is this unthoughtful, it is such an obvious display that our world revolves around ourselves—which is not supposed to happen at the most unselfish, character revealing, sin unveiling, and other-centered moment of our week: corporate worship of the Creator God and Savior Jesus Christ.  Now, granted this habit might be an unconscious one.  But what are we thinking?

Counting our individual, private sins and losing any sense of purpose
I have tired of hearing about personal, individualized sins that I might or might not be committing—especially when I hear about them from the pulpit.  Our corporate sins, our congregational responsibilities, our neglect of living out as a community the very things God wants in His community, the forgetting and neglect of the poor, the putting our corporate light under a bushel and refusing to be a City set on a hill gets lost in the call to repent of a thousand personalized, private sins.  Maybe if we would hear from the pulpit of our sins of omission as a congregation and calls for corporate repentance (one example is our neglect of the poor), maybe we wouldn’t have so many personal, private sins to repent of—there wouldn’t be as much time for them anyway.  Making every text of Scripture speak to the minutia of details in our lives drives us away from purpose, not toward it.  In fact, most texts (including the one’s read and referred to on Sunday) speak to our corporate character as a body of Christ.  But, I guess it is a whole lot safer to admit that I look at a porn website every once and a while rather than feel guilty for not ministering to the poor, and easier than contributing to the guilt of a body of people who neglect the poor.  Lot easier on the preacher too.

[A repeat posting I feel needs to be reread—again and again]

A while back I read a rather intricate essay on getting to church on time—no wait, I mean it was on preparation for Sunday worship begins on Saturday.  It was church mail.  And believe it or not, the same ideas were repeated at church the very next Sunday as well.  Almost like pastor-talking-points.  Nonetheless, it stirred my thinking.  First, although I agree that the church corporate, for the most part and throughout church history, has met on Sunday for worship, there is actually no biblical demand or command to do so.  In fact, Paul in Romans scolds those who lift one day above another.  (Friends, this is the New Testament era, not the Old—a rather important redemptive concept we keep forgetting.) Second, corporate worship, like the Old Testament day of rest (which is Saturday by the way), is cumulative, a climax, an ending, a final celebration marking the passing of time.  I had always thought that preparation for the Sunday gathering of God’s people and corporate worship actually started on Monday.  And this leads to my third thought:  It is not about what I do or don’t do on Saturday, it is about who I am and who I belong to—all week.  This last idea is what keeps the experience of corporate worship out of the realm of law and under grace.  These are hardly definitive or exhaustive thoughts, but I am always amazed how much we constantly put ourselves “under law” in our Christian life rather than “under the Spirit” and grace.  I am all for preparing for corporate worship together, but I’d like to see (hear) the discussion from a Biblical, rather than, pragmatic perspective.  Again, this idea of preparing for Sunday on Saturday reminds me that our Christian and worship experience is built on my experience and participation in the American way of life, and not a reflection of the redemptive potential (my Pastor’s term) of who we are in Christ; built on the modern (and postmodern) American social and cultural values we have become accustomed to rather than expression of a biblical worldview we are being discipled in.

“Conversion, which had made Christians into distinct people—resident aliens—now was something that made people ordinary, not resident aliens but simply residents.” ~Alan Krieder

Reading through The God Delusion I hear arguments retold I have heard many times over the 30 years of my Christian life.  In fact I heard some of them before my conversion to Christ in 1978.  They were the ones I used to argue for my own form of atheism.  But, as C S Lewis once stated in his The Pilgrim’s Regress, an allegory of his own conversion to Christ, “Reason came riding on a horse and rescued me.” Now I can fully admit, not everything was simple reason or logic.  But that opened the door for faith to find a place to land in my heart.  Dawkins is attempting to kick the rider off the horse and shake up the land so my footing becomes shaky.  He calls me “imbecilic,” “stupid,” “foolish,” “a believer in fairytales.” Yet, as I read Dawkin’s book, although I could tell it would be attractive to skeptics and utilized by American atheists, and by many more as an excuse for continued disbelief, he relies on calling names and belittling believers, and he shows his arrogance by crafting out a God (really a straw-god) that few people actually believe in to make his point.  So the book, in the end, is not to convince believers to abandon their faith, but to sell his brand of atheism to a market of starving atheists who need a foundation (albeit from Dawkin still a shaky one) to sustain their disbelief in God, especially a disbelief in the God of the Bible.

I have been paying attention to atheist blogs and sites for some time now, and after reading (even some of) Dawkin’s book, I realized where they are getting their talking points from.  As a reasonable person, I do read with interest.  I am still quiet amazed at Dawkin’s lack of knowledge of Christian sources, texts, and arguments, though.  His own bibliography in the book shows his lack of interacting with Christian scholarship, even at the popular level.  His references are either of skeptics who state the same thing he wants to say, or straw-men (quotes with no reference cited so we can check it out.) I am so overwhelmed by his hatred for Christianity and his belittlement of Christians that I can’t even appreciate the good and reasonable questions Dawkins raises.  I continue, page after page, to be left with these thoughts:

What is a scientific defined basis for morality?

What is a scientific definition of ‘good’?

How does science produce a foundation for a moral, good, and righteous society?

What kind of objective guide or standard does science give us to be good or moral?

In fact, these terms (good, moral, righteous) lose their definition and meaning as I realize, through Dawkins, there is no objective standard to give meaning or weight to these ideas and words.  Good has to mean, by Dawkins’ own advocacy of evolution (including his selfish-gene theory) whatever passes on the most genes wins—how do these genes know what is good anyway?  On the one hand Dawkins tells us we are the product of long term evolutionary progress and our gene pool has determined—conditioned—our responses to life; meanwhile he tells us we are to be good for just being good.  But our genes take over and tell us what has to survive to pass on.  He expects caring and selflessness even though are genes as selfish.  As Dawkins is amazed that seeming intelligent people buy into religious thinking, I am amazed, dumbfounded that decent, thinking people find his own arguments sound.  On ever page, I recall the Psalmist who said, “A fool has said in his heart, ‘There is no god.’”

I was letting my daughter and stepson get some books at Borders one afternoon—my mom gave me a gift card to use, some of which was to be spent on my kids (of course).  I started browsing Richard Hawkins’ new book, The God Delusions.  Even after the first page, I wanted to start replying to his straw-men, false assertions about Christianity and the Bible, as well as his horrible use of logic.  I bought the book—at least it was 30% off!  So I respond to the one area I find most vulnerable to Western Atheists: the question of a basis for morals, moral assertions, and doing good.  Richard Dawkins entitles one of his chapters, “If there is no God, why be good?” This actually seems like a good question.  And, he rightly sets up the debate, really the potential answers to this question:  If you are being good to gain God’s approval or reward or to avoid his disapproval and punishment, that’s not morality, that’s just “sucking up.” Silly argument, really.  I taught logic and debate and critical thinking at the college level and one of the most important things one needs to do is define terms, and those definitions need to be agreed upon by all sides, and the definitions must, obviously, work in reality.  Dawkins makes an interesting proposition, albeit not so original: We do not need God to be good.  But there are so many problems, at so many levels, with this premise.  Nonetheless, despite its weaknesses, this premise is re-worded to be a question, and then used to smash Christians and their beliefs.  The question, at first glance, even seems reasonable.  So, if God doesn’t exist, would we be and do good?  Here are some random thoughts to highlight the weakness and logical fallacies in what this question assumes and seeks to imply:

The question itself is used to set up the believer with a catch 22 dilemma: Be good to please God and that’s sucking up; say no ‘I can be good without God’ and the Christian then defeats his or her own argument.  But the questioner must be questioned before an answer is given.  The question is wrong from the start.  It is not that we need God to be good or do good.  Atheists can and do good, as I imagine that criminals, the insane, and even cannibals do good at times as well.  This is one significant place—really only one of many places in his arguments—Dawkin gets it wrong: We do not need God or even a belief in a god to do good.  (That’s a no brainer.) But we do need God to define what good is.  (I’d even say for argument sake, we need some objective, ultimate Being—but that’s further down the road for this argument.) This the atheist’s problem.

The question is better put, “If there is no God, is there ‘good’?  And, to push it a little further, more personal, more practical, “whose ‘good’ is Dawkins talking about—his own, Hitler’s, Gandhi’s, Mother Theresa’s, my teenager’s?  Whose?  We need God, not just to have a reason to be good, but to know what good to be or do.  Richard Dawkins is clever enough not to develop his moral basis and foundation for defining good because in doing so he must borrow from his rejected Christian worldview.  Additionally, I’d even say, what’s wrong with being good or doing good for someone else?  My daughter does things to receive my affirmation or approval or even sometimes for reward, as I do for my wife, and for my own mother (sometimes).  Such action does not always imply a negative.  I love my daughter no matter what she does.  But what’s wrong with her loving me and wanting to do things for reward or affirmation?  Dawkins will have to give us some reasons why that’s so wrong anyway—he does not offer one reason on that assertion of his.  And maybe I want God’s approval.  If Dawkins is advocating a truly altruistic human existence, he is delusional himself.

“We have lost the text, in a measure, because we have become knowing and technologically competent, and one cannot build public greatness on the foundation of irascible Holiness who subverts.  Our controlling power and self-confidence have come to require a text not so disruptive, either this one smoothed to management or another one in its place” ~Walter Brueggemann, The Word That Redescribes the World: The Bible and Discipleship, p. 6

In the years I have been a Christian, I’d say, aside from the reference to John 3:16 and Revelation 3:20 (“Behold I stand at the door and knock”), Mark 1:17 and Matthew 4:19 have been some of the most quoted and referred to verses I have heard from the lips of Christian leaders.  In my research on social action and evangelism, I hear these verses quoted, actually, quite often as people offer definitions of evangelism.  Ranking right up there with Galatians 2:20 (“I have been crucified with Christ”), Jesus’ words about becoming “fishers of men” are staple references to refer to the way one is to be a Christian.  In some measure I agree, but not for the same reasons given by most (e.g., fishers of men = witnessing, catching people for Christ).  (In fact all the popular verses mentioned above will deserve Rough Cut time on this site!) I was struck by the fact that the interpretation of Mark 1:17 that I had posited made it difficult for this popular verse to be applied.  My interpretation didn’t seem practical.  I have always struggled with our fixation with application.  I wrote in the fishers of men Rough Cut:

It can be too easy to resort to popular interpretations because they are, however misleading (away from the text), often easier to grasp.  We shouldn’t exclude difficult to understand allusions just because they are harder to relate to, or are more difficult to apply personally.  I pause to point out that we, in the contemporary American Church, are fixated on application.  There is a tendency to skip and even to eschew the vital step of interpretation (by which I mean exegesis).  Somewhere along the way, we abandoned the discipline of exegesis and biblical interpretation in exchange for American pragmatism.  The Bible often becomes, with each individual part (i.e., each text, each verse, and even sometimes just a word here and there in a verse), a utilitarian tool to give detail instructions and application—specific do’s and don’ts.  Every text has to be practical.  This makes it all the harder to offer interpretations that—on the surface—do not seem practical, or easily applied.  (The fishers of men Rough Cut)

This fixation on application and practicality makes it especially difficult to offer interpretations of popular verses that are hard to understand and difficult to apply.  Such fixation on texts having to always be “practical” can lead us away from what God is actually saying through a text (like “I will make you become fishers of men” or “I have been crucified with Christ”).  As my essay on “fishers of men” points out, we should seek to understand the significance of a text first, then—and only then—can we apply what God has said.  (The fishers of men Rough Cut)

Some famous and forgotten quotes to honor Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s life and courage:

“It is not because the truth is too difficult to see that we make mistakes… we make mistakes because the easiest and most comfortable course for us is to seek insight where it accords with our emotions—especially selfish ones.”

“The name of ‘reform’ simply covers what is latently a process of the theft of the national heritage.”

“If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being.”

“It was only when I lay there on the rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not between states nor between social classes nor between political parties, but right through every human heart, through all human hearts. And that is why I turn back to the years of my imprisonment and say, sometimes to the astonishment of those about me, bless you, prison, for having been a part of my life.”

“We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn was born in Kislovodsky on 11th December, 1918 (which is my birthday, by the way, but a little earlier in the century, of course) died at age 89 on August 3, 2008.  His three-volume “Gulag Archipelago” unclothed and revealed the horrors of the Soviet labor camps, where, eventually, he was imprisoned.  He was arrested in February 1945 for writing letters critical of Stalin and was sentenced to eight years at labor camps, which would provide the context of his future writings and his understanding of evil and the need for God.

I know.  Short on posts these days.  Between long days at work (and bringing some work home), a recent vacation (thank goodness), and now gathering up all my research for my paper on Social Action and Evangelism, I am mostly tapped out at this point.  Of course the brain hasn’t stopped and my stream of consciousness is still very active, but time to compose and post has been robbed of energy and, well, time.  I am working on our Community Assessment (at work) and, as well, this year’s Federal Head Start application (which means developing a budget for our 2009 full child development services, over 6 mil with multiple resources and funding streams—can’t believe I do this for a living now!).  Plus I have finished up reading and researching for the paper which now needs to be written for November’s Evangelical Theological Society annual meeting.  This year the conference is in Rhode Island (thankfully close).  The schedule of paper presentations is now out—and I can see my paper has been approved (I think thanks to Dr. Aida Besanáon Spencer of Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary). I can see I am presenting my paper on Wednesday November 19 at 9:20 am.  So I am rather busy.  I have posted quite a lot of my thoughts on this paper and subject while I have been reading and researching.  Most is posted under the “Wasted Evangelism” subject.  I will get back to posting soon—I am sure you all can’t wait.  For now, happy summer.

Every time I ask an atheist, whether personally or through a blog, group board, or website, where did the known, physical universe come from—how did it begin?  I usually receive no answer, or the comment, “We’ve been through this before.” But when I say, “Can you explain it again,” no answer is given.  There is no doubt that there is an element of “faith” for the atheist regarding the origin (or dare say, non-origin) of the universe, and additionally, there is the lack of scientific explanation for the origin of the universe.  I repeat, who has determined that we live in a closed universe where the only way to “prove” things such as the existence of God, origins of the universe, angels, heaven, and hell must be scientific and not logical?  What’s wrong with reason as a method for determining the soundness of one’s conclusion concerning the original of creation?

The very “logic” used by atheists isn’t scientific (ironically), and seems to betray their insistence that there are no eternal, immaterial, non-changing things in this universe.  (Really how do they know that?) For the laws of logic are indeed immaterial, eternal, and non-changing.  Furthermore, what was before time began?  What was there before there was space?  It is hard for atheist to imagine what it was like before time and before space, for such imagining is indeed an almost impossible (and I might add, implausible) scientific pursuit that actually is a faith statement about one’s worldview—not a scientific answer.

If the atheist stipulates, that explaining what was before time and space cannot be imagined, “chance” then becomes, as Steve Turner once penned, “the Father of all flesh.” Chance brought this meaningless existence, rhymeless physical universe into being.  Steve Turner writes, so playfully, but poignantly, in his poem called “Chance”:

     If chance be the Father of all flesh,
     disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
     and when you hear
     State of Emergency! 
     Sniper Kills Ten! 
     Troops on Rampage! 
     Whites go Looting! 
     Bomb Blasts School!
     It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

The difficultly in imagining the creation of our physical and known universe where there is no material becoming material, along with no time and no space at one point becoming time and space leads to an even more devastating imagination of a universe without an eternal, all-powerful, holy, immutable Being.  Steve Turner reminds us what is left to imagine within an atheistic worldview and the plague of living with an atheistic faith in no-thing, just chance.

Everything is backwards.  The good die young.  Evil outlasts the virtuous.  The wicked thrive.  Everything is upside-down.  The weight of what’s wrong can overwhelm the God-sensitive soul.  Like the Psalmist, our feet can slip, we can lose our foothold (Ps. 73:2) when we consider the unfair, backward dealings of the world.

They have no struggles;
    their bodies are healthy and strong.
They are free from the burdens common to man;
    they are not plagued by human ills.
Therefore pride is their necklace;
    they clothe themselves with violence.
From their callous hearts comes iniquity;
    the evil conceits of their minds know no limits.
They scoff, and speak with malice;
    in their arrogance they threaten oppression.
Their mouths lay claim to heaven,
    and their tongues take possession of the earth (Ps 73:4-9)

I read in the papers and watch on TV the meaningless acts of rage, wartime horror stories, families in despair, depressed children over family tragedies of illness, death, and divorce, and the world of substance abuse killing—all the souls of men and women, children and families.  This is not the way it is supposed to be.

Some ask, “Where is God?” Some just out rightly say, “God is dead, gone, finished, absent, never existed anyway…” Even for the believer, life can be a constant reminder of what the world could be like if God did not exist.  Yet, still believing…there is a God who acts in the history and in the mundane of human existence.  It seems to me foolishness, even in the face of the worst evil can unleash, to think that everything is just left to chance.  I think of Steve Turner’s poem, aptly called “Chance.”

        If chance be the Father of all flesh,
        disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
        and when you hear
        State of Emergency!
        Sniper Kills Ten!
        Troops on Rampage!
        Whites go Looting!
        Bomb Blasts School!
        It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

This cannot be the answer we must succumb to… But here’s the rub, even the answer to the questions of meaninglessness, hopelessness, confusion, and redemption seems foolishness to those who do not have ears to ear.

One morning, on my drive to work, I was listened to Imus (in the morning) making some comments on Mel Gibson’s movie, “The Passion of the Christ.” He wasn’t being critical of the Passion, but his flippant word-bite, “If I were God, I just won’t have done it that way” (meaning the cross).  This spoke volumes about our so-called human wisdom.  Meaning: Imus would have chosen some other means other than crucifying his son to save mankind.  Well, that’s the point.  It took what looked like foolishness to man to answer the questions of evil, suffering, sin, goodness, peace, God, heaven, life, and hell.  It took the foolishness of Jesus to fix this world where “everything is backwards” and to redeem you and me.  Yes, it took a fool to make everything right side up.

Michael Card’s song (of some years back), God’s Own Fool, came to mind as I listened to Imus’ comment.  Here are the words of the song and some Scriptures that show insight and might help make sense out of this sometimes overwhelmingly senseless world:

        It seems I’ve imagined Him all of my life
        The wisest of all of mankind
        But if God’s holy wisdom is foolish to man
        He must have seemed out of His mind

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’ Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength” (1 Corinthians 1:18-25).

        For even His family said He was mad
        And the priests said a demon’s to blame
        But God in the form of this angry young man
        Could not have seemed perfectly sane

“And He came home, and the multitude gathered again, to such an extent that they could not even eat a meal. And when His own people heard of this, they went out to take custody of Him; for they were saying, ‘He has lost His senses’” (Mark 3:22).

“And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, ‘He is possessed by Beelzebul,’ and “He casts out the demons by the ruler of the demons’” (Mark 3:22).

“The Jews answered and said to Him, ‘Do we not say rightly that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?’” (John 8:48)

“The Jews said to Him, ‘Now we know that You have a demon’” (John 8:52)

“There arose a division again among the Jews because of these words. And many of them were saying, ‘He has a demon, and is insane; why do you listen to Him?’” (John 10:19-20)

        When we in our foolishness thought we were wise
        He played the fool and He opened our eyes
        When we in our weakness believed we were strong
        He became helpless to show we were wrong
        And so we follow God’s own fool
        For only the foolish can tell
        Believe the unbelievable
        Come be a fool as well

“Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you thinks that he is wise in this age, let him become foolish that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, ‘He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness’ and again, ‘The LORD knows that the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless’” (1 Corinthians 3:18-20).

“We are fools for Christ’s sake, but you are prudent in Christ; we are weak, but you are strong; you are distinguished, but we are without honor” (1 Corinthians 4:10).

        So come lose your life for a carpenter’s son
        For a mad man who died for a dream
        And you’ll have the faith His first followers had
        And you’ll feel the weight of the beam
        So surrender the hunger to say you must know
        Have the courage to say “I believe”
        For the power of paradox opens your eyes
        And blinds those who say they can see

“And Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.’ Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things, and said to Him, ‘We are not blind too, are we?’ Jesus said to them, ‘if you were blind you would have no sin; but since you say, ‘We see,’ your sin remains” (John 9:39-41)

        When we in our foolishness thought we were wise
        He played the fool and He opened our eyes
        When we in our weakness believed we were strong
        He became helpless to show we were wrong
        And so we follow God’s own fool
        For only the foolish can tell
        Believe the unbelievable
        Come be a fool as well
        And so we follow God’s own fool
        For only the foolish can tell
        Believe the unbelievable
        Come be a fool as well

No one in Scripture said bearing witness of the Gospel was easy.  In fact, the few times Scripture does speak of Gospel-telling, it says martyrdom is expected.  It is tough being a fool in this world.  Sometimes it leads to a cross.  But I for one, will continue to “believe the unbelievable” and will continue to show how Christ’s foolishness is the answer to the deepest questions of life.

We have come to a pretty pass when atheism is allowed to invade public life.  Of course I am punning on the older, with a slightly altered spin on Lord Melbourne’s famous comment toward Christianity just to make a somewhat sarcastic point.  The older words I refer to are Lord Melbourne’s terse cut leveled at the horrible likes of William Wilberforce’s audacity to allow his private faith in Jesus Christ to influence his political views and invade English cultural debate.  The original Melbourne sneer at Wilberforce’s advocacy to end the slave trade read are on record: “Things are coming to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life.”

We hear this in modern times as well, in many forms.  One particular inference comes from atheists who, in America, insist that religion should play no role, have no influence, nor have any bearing on matters public, especially if tax dollars or public property is concerned.  Anything that is forced on the public should not have a religious basis whatsoever.  There is a strong underlying secondary principle that, at least among atheists, that only what finds its basis scientifically should be forced upon the public and invade the arena of debate.  Those holding an atheistic worldview cannot mean that forced beliefs, rules, actions, etc. should find their basis in consensus (for a consensus still exits to allow, at least in a restricted measure, religious thoughts and ideas into public debate), or as a basis in democratic vote (i.e., a majority, since a vast majority of Americans hold to some form of religious faith).

My ponder here is not to say that in America an atheistic worldview, or a scientific basis cannot be allowed in the public debate (thus my opening is jest).  Of course they can.  Our Constitution and Bill of Rights allows for all voices to be heard.  My only limit to such “freedom” is that any view—including a religious one—that denies the right of another’s voice to be heard equally no matter their basis is unconstitutional.  But I digress a little—my ponder:

Are we then to have a purely secular influence and shall absolutely no private belief system be allowed to have a say, a voice, an opinion, or a vote in the public sphere?  But, someone’s personal belief system will be allowed; for the public sphere shall not be voiceless (I am sure).  Why is it then that only religious-based beliefs are rejected and off-limits?  Isn’t an atheistic belief system a personal belief—for certainly it is a matter of faith that underlies the assumption that only science is a valid basis for debate and public opinion?  (For such a belief is most certainly built on an a priori assumption, which is a matter of faith, or at least a non-scientifically verifiable assumption about the universe.)

If we live in a democracy, then all voices have a right to be there—not just secular voices.  Of course, in America those of non-faith (e.g., agnostics and atheists) have a right to be heard and their views a part of the political debate.  I just don’t like it when I hear my view is being imposed upon American-atheists as if it simply should not even be a part of the public discussion.  “Your opinion is religiously based and motivated, so it is invalid and should not be imposed upon others.” It is still, things have come to a pretty pass when religion is allowed to invade public life to some.

I am afraid, despite the desires of my non-believing, God-denying fellow Americans, that religion in the public sphere was part of the original intent of the founders and it is even, for crying out loud, in the founding documents.  Argue if you will that the First Amendment clauses keep religion out of public life via some supposed high “Wall of Separation,” but that wall was built to keep the State from mandating which religion you must adhere to—not the public to be void of hearing from those who have religions convictions.  It has always amazed me that the Lord Melbournes of today forget and ignore this historic context and the literary context of the Bill of Rights.  The placement and literary context gives first place of importance to how the public interacts with its government, and the founders agreed that religion does play a role.  The freedom of speech, the right of assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances are directly, contextually juxtaposed to the State not interfering with religion and that those having a religious basis for life to be free to do so (i.e., redress the government).  The First Amendment implies a religious voice in public affairs.  Until we live in a country which foundations are atheistic in worldview (like the former communist countries and various dictatorships—all which have not faired so well, have they), the role of religion in public life is a right by design, not default.

Finally, it amazes me that, although American-atheists desire to rid the public sphere of religious speech, they borrow religious terms and concepts such as love and honesty and other moral concepts.  This is odd, since in a purely atheistic world (universe), there is no basis for morality and such emotions and ideals are willy nilly up to the person.  Value statements are all personal.  And conveniently, atheists tend to forget (or deny) that there are still many underlying non-scientific and supra-historical assumptions that exist to form an atheistic worldview.  It has come to a pretty pass when religion and/or religiously based beliefs are left out of or even forced out of public debate.

The First Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

“My memory is nearly gone, but I remember two things, that I am a great sinner, and that Christ is a great Saviour.” ~John Newton (1725-1807), former slave ship captain, at the age of 82

“John Newton, Clerk, once an infidel and libertine, a servant of slaves in Africa, was, by the rich mercy of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, preserved, restored, pardoned, and appointed to preach the faith he had long labored to destroy.” ~John Newton’s Tombstone (December 1807)